How do we respond to this?

Because we are saving the world with our work. Criticism from hillbilly whitetrash nazi's is killing our planet. You have no clout.

They do you fucking retard, people just deny that backing up their work counts because all the data or analysis must be falsified as part of a globalist Jewish Chinese conspiracy

or
>every climate scientist is a jealous brainlet too dumb for physics
t. Lubos Motl

>Because we are saving the world with our work. Criticism from hillbilly whitetrash nazi's is killing our planet. You have no clout.
literally not an arguement, and you obviously have no conception of the scientific method, i'm guessing you're at most an undergrad?

everyone on sci is an undergrad you dip

it's obvious you are because you don't understand what science is but there are plenty of people on here past their undergrad (myself included), so feel free to keep projecting

shut the fuck up redneck. deniers like you are holding back education and science. aswell as all of mankind

i actually live in a big city, furthest thing from a redneck

keep up the ad hominems and lack of scientific understanding though

you're holding yourself back and have no place to speak about education when you're probably only a freshman

>lele he thinks he's talking to one person

get rekt kid

i don't, which is why i only replied to one post

who else did i quote?

A hypothesis is formed from knowledge obtained by questioning reality. All science is based off of questioning reality. Questioning the nature of reality led to physics, questioning the composition of life led to the creation of biology, questioning the composition of the universe led to the creation of astronomy, questioning the history and structure of the earth led to geology, questioning the nature of heat led to thermodynamics, etc.
All science is based off of fundamental questioning of reality. Questioning the nature of our climate and atmosphere led to climate science. Questioning climate science leads to obtaining knowledge about the climate. The scientific method is an iterative loop, you don't get to assert that a result a fraction of way through a loop is the final answer, especially when there are logically and empirically sound criticisms of the rigor and results of climate science.

Nice non-arguement/appeal to emotion, buddy. You're really getting the intellectual community on your side with those ;)

I am the intellectual community redneck. nice fallacies there bro. you aren't welcome you white loser.

10/10 shitposting.
Here, have a sage.

...

Lrn2urban-redneck, thou inbred mouthbreather

>live beside sun
>expect not to heat up

The earth is warming but it has nothing to do with mankind

The earth is warming due to mankind's emissions of greenhouse gasses, according to all the scientific evidence.

You aren't questioning reality, you are denying scientific evidence and only listening to flawed analysis that confirms your preconceived beliefs that the earth isn't warming due to man. For example, your graph cites a very flawed paper that scientists have widely debunked. The difference between a skeptic and someone like you is that skeptics ask a question and then accept an answer supported by scientific evidence. You will only accept the answer you already agree with and ignore the evidence that supports the opposite. Either you are pretending to be skeptical or you don't know any better and are simply parroting other people pretending to be skeptical.

I think that is a terrible photoshop.

During the Ordovician period CO2 levels in the atmosphere were roughly 4,400 ppm, and there was still significant glaciation... CO2 levels have historically always lagged behind temperature increases. If conjecture is so evidentiary to you, it is more logical to assume that warming causes CO2 increase.
You do realize that if the government was convinced that climate change is natrual and not anthropogenic, 90% of climate scientists would be out of jobs. Its rational to conclude that there is a huge amount of bias coming from this community. Ive never heard a convincing arguement for anthropogenic global warming, and Ive seen very convincing evidence that CO2 leads to a logarithmic change in temperature. Could you perhaps link this paper rebuting the evidence of CO2s warming being a hocky stick shaped logarithmic curve? If you could, that would be magnitudes better than any arguement Ive ever heard from an AGWer. I generally just get the same emotional reaction and insecurity projection expressed by every AGWer in this thread including yourself.

>During the Ordovician period CO2 levels in the atmosphere were roughly 4,400 ppm, and there was still significant glaciation.
aaand the end-Ordovician glaciation coincided with a sharp drop in CO2 concentration.
>CO2 levels have historically always lagged behind temperature increases.
Not actually true. USUALLY warming is kicked off by things like Milankovitch cycles, but the warming related to the end-Permian and end-Cretaceous extinctions FOLLOWED massive releases of CO2 (from the Siberian Traps and Deccan Traps flood basalt provinces, respectively). and if you look at the temperature and CO2 records from recent history, you'll see that temperature lags behind CO2 over the past ~20 kyr.
>if the government was convinced that climate change is natrual and not anthropogenic, 90% of climate scientists would be out of jobs.
here you display your ignorance of how science and public funding of science work. the discovery that Wegener was right didn't put an end to seafloor mapping, did it? there was no mass purge of publicly funded cytology when McClintock's ideas were vindicated, right?
>Its rational to conclude that there is a huge amount of bias coming from this community.
If you think baseless "it sounds right to me" paranoia is "rational", sure.
>Ive seen very convincing evidence that CO2 leads to a logarithmic change in temperature
what exactly is the significance of this? please note that according to the very graphs you've been posting, where we are on the curve makes the relationship between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature nearly linear.

this

> the discovery that Wegener was right didn't put an end to seafloor mapping
Seafloor mapping wasn't reliant on doomsday predictions and political favoritism like the AGW cult is. No doomsday = no reason for 90% of climate scientists.

You're missing the point. In the past we've had literally 10 times the concentration of CO2 that we have now, and all the apocalyptic predictions of an ice free arctic and such that AGW evangelists have been talking about didn't happen. It doesn't matter if CO2 is 400ppm or 4000ppm because CO2 does not drive temperature.

> where we are on the curve makes the relationship between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature nearly linear.
Where we are on the curve also means that increasing CO2 basically does nothing to the temperature.

An increase of 300 ppm to 400 ppm isnt doubling, it isnt nearly linear growth and never had been. An increase in atmospheric CO2 by 200 ppm would account for a whopping 0.2C increase in temperature.
You offer false analogies. The significance of the government finding out that climate change isnt anthropogenic is akin to a totally hypothetical scenario where electromagneticists assert that objects fall towards earth because because the electrons surrounding atoms desire to be grounded, and government funding was pouring in to research this property of atoms and its applications. As significant evidence emerges that the curvature of spacetime leads to gravity and that particles of different charge are equally attracted to the earth, do the elecromaneticists cede their entire field of study for the past decade, all federal funding of the phenomena, and public opinion of future research into electromagnetism? No, that would be devistating from their standpoint, instead they lots of convincing looking correlations between atoms with electrons and their attraction to the earth, and continue to push ideas of further extrapolation of their "findings" and claim consensus to get the public and government excited about the future of electromagnetism and to push criticisms under the rug because arguements from authority are apparently dogmatic to some people.
All you can conclude from the data that reads "CO2 levels correlate both positivly and negatively to temperature increase at different points in time" is something other than CO2 is very likely causing temperature change.
Provide me empirically sound evidence that CO2 does not cause logorithmic radiative forcing and actually provides multiplicative forcing as described by IPCC, or cede your arguement that climate change is anthropogenic and climate scientists arent hacks, and move on.
When CO2 was at 4,400 ppm, how could life exist in equatorial regions where summer temperatures would exceed 80C?

>CO2 at 4,400 ppm .. summer temperatures would exceed 80C
4400 ppm was during the late Ordovician ice age, 450 My ago.
Does CO2 sometimes cause ice ages?

How exactly are you different from a creationist saying without evolution there would be no biologists, because the Illuminati or whatever wants everyone to be atheists?

Climatologists study the climate and AGW is a theory which explains the current climate. If AGW was false then we would still need to understand the climate and we would still need all our climatologists. Your attempts to discredit scientists with nothing but puerile insults and baseless conspiracy conjecture is pathetic. Stop lying.

>You're missing the point. In the past we've had literally 10 times the concentration of CO2 that we have now, and all the apocalyptic predictions of an ice free arctic and such that AGW evangelists have been talking about didn't happen.
That's wrong for several reasons. Glaciation only occurred when the temperature dropped from a massive increase in carbon sinks and decrease in solar activity.

>It doesn't matter if CO2 is 400ppm or 4000ppm because CO2 does not drive temperature.
CO2 does drive temperature, this is apparent throughout the paleoclimate record, from basic physics, and direct observation. it's not the only factor that does so, but it's the main factor in the current warming. Stop making shit up.

>Where we are on the curve also means that increasing CO2 basically does nothing to the temperature.
It's one of the fastest, if not the fastest, warming trends we've ever seen. Saying that the rate is logarithmic doesn't tell us anything about it's actual magnitude or effect. Your argument is a delusional red herring.

>An increase of 300 ppm to 400 ppm isnt doubling, it isnt nearly linear growth and never had been.
What does being doubled have to do with whether the rate is near linear? You realize that describing the effect through doubling is merely a useful way of describing the curve, right?

>90% of climate scientists would be out of jobs
They are already running out of work because the science is settled. In fact the more they are forced to study it the more obvious it will be that predicting local weather 8 days out is hard, let alone global climate 8 years out. Then there is the matter of all those carbon taxes and all those innocent children growing up thinking CO2 is a toxic chemical.

The climate conspiracy theorists need to be stopped
Kys op

>An increase in atmospheric CO2 by 200 ppm would account for a whopping 0.2C increase in temperature.
Where did you get this number?

>The significance of the government finding out that climate change isnt anthropogenic is akin to a totally hypothetical scenario
This is hilarious considering the American government is now run by people who publicly claim climate change isn't anthropogenic. So on the one hand you're telling me scientists just say whatever they need to say to get funding and on the other you're saying they will never give up a disproved theory. Your conspiracy theories contradict each other.

>All you can conclude from the data that reads "CO2 levels correlate both positivly and negatively to temperature increase at different points in time" is something other than CO2 is very likely causing temperature change.
This completely ignores that the effect of CO2 is not determined from mere correlation but by direct measurement and causation through basic physics. The fact that CO2 causes warming and warming increases CO2, while other factors effect both, explains the correlations observed throughout the record. You are trying to argue as if it's the other way around while ignoring everything but the effect of CO2 on warming. You fundamentally don't understand what you're arguing about, and you're making a fool of yourself.

>Provide me empirically sound evidence that CO2 does not cause logorithmic radiative forcing and actually provides multiplicative forcing as described by IPCC
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2568.html

>When CO2 was at 4,400 ppm, how could life exist in equatorial regions where summer temperatures would exceed 80C?
Because life back then was adapted to an extreme greenhouse environment. Or do you deny evolution as well? Unfortunately the rapid glaciation and sea level decrease that occurred at the end of the Ordovician–Silurian period caused the second greatest mass extinction on Earth.

>penguins in the same picture as polar bears.

If you are going to shill 'global warming' at least use a more realistic picture OP.

>No doomsday = no reason for 90% of climate scientists.
butthatswrongyoufuckingretard.dll
Atmospheric chemists didn't get fired en masse after they solved the CFC (ozone hole) issue. Parasitologists didn't lose their jobs after they eliminated the screwworm problem.
And if you think that government-funded seafloor mapping wasn't about averting doomsday, you must not have heard of nuclear ICBMs or submarine warfare. The whole reason we know what the oceans look like is because the Pentagon wanted to know how to hide (and detect) submarines that might be used in a nuclear first strike if the Cold War ever went hot. Dumbass.

You have this fundamentally inaccurate view of publicly funded research as a response to a crisis, rather than as an investigative process that seeks to find shit out just for the sake of finding shit out.

>without deadly imminent we don't need research or scientists!
>The climate stops existing once global warming is BTFO!

You're the problem here.
see:

>In the past we've had literally 10 times the concentration of CO2 that we have now, and all the apocalyptic predictions of an ice free arctic and such that AGW evangelists have been talking about didn't happen.
Except that the Ordovician WAS almost entirely ice free. Glaciation only happened at the very end, and it coincided with a major drop in CO2; prior to that there was no glaciation at all, and the geochemical clues that we have indicate that seawater surface temperatures were over 40 C.
>Where we are on the curve also means that increasing CO2 basically does nothing to the temperature.
Except that's not actually true.

>do you not care about the poor and impoverished of the world? huh. disgusting.
b8

We've contributed only a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 volume since the Edwardian era.

>Atmospheric chemists didn't get fired en masse after they solved the CFC (ozone hole) issue.

Climate change is a real and potentially seious phenomenon.

The Ozone Hole was a media created myth (there was no "hole," there was an area of lower concentration of ozone), and there was never any plausible mechanism by which CFCs from your average spray can could be transported up to the ozone layer.

No we haven't. Humans emissions are 4% of the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. 96% is from natural sources. However, natural sinks absorb even more CO2 than the natural sources emit, while humans do not. Our contribution is even greater than the total increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the 20th century, because natural sinks absorbed some of our CO2.

Imagine you have two salesmen. Salesman A orders 30 units of your product. Salesman B orders 750 units. Salesman A sells none of the product while Salesman B sells all of the product he ordered, and he even picks up the slack by selling 15 of the units Salesman A ordered. Would you now say that Salesman A is only responsible for 4% of the profit lost by not selling the remaining 15 units, since he only ordered 4% of the units? Or would you say that Salesman A is completely responsible for the profit lost since he sold nothing?

>Ozone Hole was a media created myth (there was no "hole," there was an area of lower concentration of ozone)
the "hole" was a pretty sizable area with ozone concentrations of ~30% normal levels, and decreased concentrations were observed around the globe
>there was never any plausible mechanism by which CFCs from your average spray can could be transported up to the ozone layer
what is diffusion
what is convective circulation
what is a fairly well-mixed atmosphere

ozone depletion means more UV reaching the ground. they actually saw increases in skin cancer in far southern South America (which lay under the edge of the "hole") with a plausible link to increased UV flux at the surface.

>The Ozone Hole was a media created myth (there was no "hole," there was an area of lower concentration of ozone)
Are you autistic? You realize that the word "hole" can be used to refer to a weakness or area through which a barrier can be penetrated right? The ozone hole referred to an area of weakness in the ozone layer that allowed significant amounts of UV radiation in.

>and there was never any plausible mechanism by which CFCs from your average spray can could be transported up to the ozone layer.
Where are /pol/tards getting this bullshit from?

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere during the Hirnantian glaciaction were between 4,400 and 2,300 ppm. 8-5x the amount of CO2 that is currently in our atmosphere is still minimal enough to support glaciation. Not just maintain glaciers, but for glaciers to form and expand.
Please stop acting like a dense mong. Humans could octuple the atmospheric CO2 and glaciers would grow.
The most likely scenario is that the ever increasing amount of radio waves being generated across the globe are being reflected off the ionosophere turning the earth into a low frequency microwave of sorts. Of course this is anthropogenic, but it wont lead to apocolypse as it only contributes to a 15% varience in temperature whereas the sun contributes 75%, and the only compromise for this 15% is dismantling the entire telecommunications network in the world.

>8-5x the amount of CO2 that is currently in our atmosphere is still minimal enough to support glaciation. Not just maintain glaciers, but for glaciers to form and expand.
>Humans could octuple the atmospheric CO2 and glaciers would grow.
amazingly enough, CO2 isn't the ONLY thing that drives temperature. the climate of the Ordovician isn't directly comparable to modern climate

>the ever increasing amount of radio waves being generated across the globe are being reflected off the ionosophere turning the earth into a low frequency microwave of sorts
holy shit, are you actually so retarded as to think telecom is putting this much heat into the atmosphere?
>whereas the sun contributes 75%
confirmed for actually retarded, solar activity is in fact trending downward. we have a way of measuring this, you know...

So what youre saying is that CO2 doesnt drive temperature to a signifcant degree, that it is driven by other natural sources? Wow! Big round of applause for the big boy who finally put 2 and 2 together and got 4.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50379/abstract

Im not just pulling those numbers out of my ass, theres some data to back this. Its the best explaination for the recent change in temperature Ive heard, but its still very possible that this effect is natural and the change is indeed entirely natural.

>So what youre saying is that CO2 doesnt drive temperature to a signifcant degree
If deniers really believed that AGW is false, why do they have to constantly lie and misrepresent their opponents claims? Why would a rational person need to do this?

>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50379/abstract
>Im not just pulling those numbers out of my ass, theres some data to back this.
This is really comical. The paper doesn't say that radiowaves are contributing to warming at all. It's saying that the temperature of the upper atmosphere shifts the position of the ionosphere into more dense or less dense areas, which affects the absorption of radio waves. This means the strength of a radio wave reflected off the ionosphere may be used as a proxy for ionosphere temperature. You have it completely ass backwards, probably because you didn't even read the paper. Not to mention that you don't understand the difference between variability and the actual trend.

No, you didn't pull the numbers out of your ass, you just completely failed to accurately describe what those numbers mean. How many times are you going to make a fool out of yourself before you stop pretending to know anything about climatology? Do you enjoy people calling you out for lying?

>CO2 isn't the ONLY thing that drives temperature
>CO2 doesnt drive temperature
overeating isn't the ONLY thing that causes obesity. therefore, overeating doesn't cause obesity!
--(You), probably

reading comprehension is everything
speaking of which, the paper you cite doesn't AT ALL support your batshit claim. the conclusions literally are that the cooler the mesopause is, the more strongly it reflects radio signals, and that the strength of skywaves can be used to measure mesopause temperature. completely backwards, like said.
every time you post, you sound more and more imbecilic, you big waste of redox potential.

The fact that you can have ten times the CO2 without increasing temperature does prove that CO2 doesn't drive temperature.

The fact that The Rock can eat ten times as much as a regular person without getting fat does prove that overeating doesn't cause obesity.

See, you're neglecting the fact that more than one factor differs. The Rock exercises way more than us lesser mortals. Similarly, in the Ordovician there was a TOTALLY DIFFERENT rock weathering regime due to the lack of land plants, the sun was significantly dimmer (not by a huge amount but enough to make a major difference), and the continents were arranged very differently which caused sharply different patterns of oceanic (and to a limited degree atmospheric) circulation.
teal deer: shit was different back then, and the Ordovician isn't directly comparable to the modern biosphere.

also, if CO2 cannot drive temperature, how do you explain the sudden extreme global warming that closely followed the extrusion of massive flood basalts at the ends of the Permian and Cretaceous periods? you STILL haven't explained that!

because they want action, not to waste time arguing.

This is the dumbest thing I read on Veeky Forums ever. And I go on boards like /int/, /v/, and /k/.

We as a species need to worry about the present. That's all that matters.

>The fact that you can have ten times the CO2 without increasing temperature does prove that CO2 doesn't drive temperature.
That never happened. Temperature decreased due to increases in carbon sinks and other factors.

> other factors
Good job finally admitting that temperature isn't driven by CO2. You're making progress.

>Good job finally admitting that temperature isn't driven by CO2.
Temperature is driven by CO2 and several other factors. CO2 is the biggest factor in the current warming.

Good job at making a pathetically transparent lie and showing everyone that deniers argue in bad faith.

>CO2 is the biggest factor in the current warming.

I really don;t think that is correct. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas, and human activity is adding a shit-ton (ha) of methane to the atmosphere. Our best bet to combat warming might be to eat a couple more cows and go bulldoze as many termite nests in Africa as possible -- though the later is not a man made source, the atmosphere does not know the difference, methane is methane..

Methane is stronger but we emit much less methane than CO2. Ceasing all methane emissions would only reduce warming by about a fifth.

Because you're not a scientist and you don't know what you're talking about so stop wasting everyone's time

I think there's something telling considering that CO2 always lags temperature changes. In that Temperature changes first, and then CO2 correlates as what appears as a response.
>pic related

All climate theories are busted when you consider they rely on "uniformly mixed gas" (known to be false by NASA studies and that CO2 is denser than air), the current predictions rely on a constant (taken from Svante Arrhenius original study) from the 1750s that assumes all CO2 from the 1750s was human produced. Not to mention that his prediction should only work for the temperature of CO2 not all air. CO2 releases energy in 5ms, and is not an insulator. This and that we're in the natural CO2 PPM levels as shown by the antarctic ice cores (Look at the current CO2 levels of Antarctica) in the past. Additionally, compared to 800,000 years of ice core data, the world temperatures have become much more stable.

>tl;dr i'm not saying don't believe in climate change, I'm just saying to question data and all climate science is shit.

He's trolling you dude

No it's not

>I think there's something telling considering that CO2 always lags temperature changes.
Historical changes weren’t driven by CO2, and it played a role as a feedback.

>All climate theories are busted when you consider they rely on "uniformly mixed gas"
What makes that an inappropriate assumption?

>the current predictions rely on a constant (taken from Svante Arrhenius original study) from the 1750s that assumes all CO2 from the 1750s was human produced
What the fuck?
No.

>Not to mention that his prediction should only work for the temperature of CO2 not all air.
"Well mixed" is one thing, but unless you think that all the CO2 in the air form magical party balloons, then the two are the same thing.

>This and that we're in the natural CO2 PPM levels as shown by the antarctic ice cores (Look at the current CO2 levels of Antarctica) in the past.
We didn't live in cities back then.

>Additionally, compared to 800,000 years of ice core data, the world temperatures have become much more stable.
No, that's bullshit. The current rate of change is incredibly fast compared to past changes.

>CO2 always lags temperature changes
except when it doesn't, such as the past TWENTY THOUSAND YEARS
>www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun et al., 2012, Nature.pdf

also what said

...

No but I do expect more dense particles to on average be lower in the atmosphere.

Not true modern climate change models rely on the fact that since the climate pace change is slower, than it must reach a much larger peak because of the smaller second derivative.

It's the highest in the past 20,000 years, but not the highest in the last 800,000 years. In fact it's right on target. Refer back to my graph.

>I do expect more dense particles to on average be lower in the atmosphere
the effect of density fractionation is so small that it's drowned out by much larger variations related to the production/release and absorption/decomposition of gases (whether at the surface or elsewhere).
if your claim were correct, we wouldn't see ozone (which is ~1.5x as dense as average air) enriched 30-fold in the lower stratosphere; rather, its density would decrease with altitude.

>modern climate change models rely on the fact that since the climate pace change is slower, than it must reach a much larger peak because of the smaller second derivative
exactly what the fuck are you trying to say in this plateful of word salad?

>It's the highest in the past 20,000 years, but not the highest in the last 800,000 years. In fact it's right on target. Refer back to my graph.
Ya idjit, there are several things wrong with this.
First off, your graph doesn't show the modern-day state; it's JUST ice cores. Current [CO2] is ~400 ppm, which is WAY off the chart.
Secondly, you're talking about 800 kyr of ice cores, but the graph you posted only goes back half that time. Are you aware of this?
Thirdly, and most importantly, THE CLAIM WAS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN HIGHER, BUT WHETHER CO2 LAGS BEHIND TEMPERATURE. As you can CLEARLY see in the figure I presented, over the past ~20 kyr changes in temperature were PRECEDED by changes in CO2 concentration. This is what you claimed never happens!

Ursus maritimus, the latin for Sea Bear. Recently dubbed the polar bear, even though it only occurs at one pole.

. Fifty long-distance swims were recorded; the longest at 354 kilometres (220 mi), with an average of 155 kilometres (96 mi). The length of these swims ranged from most of a day to ten days. Ten of the sows had a cub swim with them and after a year, six cubs survived (an above average rate of survival).

Why have they always spent so much time in the water? Why is their fur adapted for swimming in arctic oceans? Their hunting cycle is as follows:
>follow the prey along the winter ice, far out over the ocean
>spring/summer arrives, the ice breaks up
>they swim back towards the arctic land masses, usually hundreds of miles

this is normal, healthy sea bear behavior. the first sea bears were discovered in the ocean btw. only jews recently began calling them polar bear. but they don't call penguins polar birds.

>SCIENCE
how are you so sure that you know what you are talking about is true?

the mainstream media, including social media, thinks any recent publication is valid science, even before the results have been reproduced.

you people really should raise your standards for evidence.

»8677829
I know this is b8, but polar bears aren't able to hunt effectively in the water. they get most of their food by bullying seals that they catch resting on the ice, and less ice means less hunting grounds for them.
>shitty bait doesn't deserve a (You)

Who gives a shit either way? Global warming has more positives than negatives anyways, considering that its positives will benefit humanity and its negatives will be solved with technology.
There is literally no reason to worry about global warming. Other environmental problems are far more pertinent.

No, other environmental problems will be solved with technology. There's no reason to worry about anything because technology will magically solve it. Don't bother putting on sunscreen because even if you get cancer sometime in the future, technology will have cured cancer. Prove me wrong.

Sunscreen is in itself a technological solution to harmful solar radiation.

My point is that any slow-moving disaster, global warming being one such example, will be solvable with various technologies. Global warming does not pose an existential threat to either humanity or the planet. If you want to help the environment, go after tangible problems that are occuring now, such as factory farming, air and water pollution, and deforestation.

Sunscreen is pointless because technology will cure cancer. It's useless technology. Better to focus on real health problems, like curing baldness.

>How do we respond to this?

"We" don't, we can't, we do not have the tools necessary.

By the time change is realized, it is too late.

We are past the point of return.

We, like all living things either adapt to change, or perish.

It was/is/will be the way of things, adapt or die, simple.

Mankind has been remarkable in its adaptations, will we continue to be so?

Some of my ancestors lived on an ice sheet covering northern Europe, as the climate changed and the ice retreated, they had trouble adapting and were absorbed and replaced by a new group of humans who adapted

Nothing is permanent, nothing stays the same, nothing lives forever

Adapt and thrive or resist and perish.

Won't really matter to you or I, change takes a while, a continuous process, you just don't realize it, we don't live long enough to have it effect is personally

Worry about things you can effect, enjoy your life while you are here.

Next to might need to begin planning ways to stop our star from eventually expanding and burning the Earth to a cinder, it's a ways out, but I am sure a sub committee could be established, with a budget, to look into the negative effects and possible remedies of this impeding problem, I believe we are nearing a turning point now, with enough funding and taxing powers, we might be able to "do something", time to get involved, to build awareness, to assign blame, only a mere billion years left, better hurry.

That's a nice strawman argument, but you are completely misrepresenting my point.

Literally not an argument

Please try again